Criminal Law - Section 363, 376 of the IPC & Section 4 of the POCSO Act - Framing of Charge – Scope under Sections 227 & 228 CrPC – Legal Principles Reiterated – Held that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to sift the evidence for limited purposes to determine whether a prima facie case exists – A strong suspicion suffices but the court cannot act as a mere post office – Reaffirmed the legal tests laid down in Prafulla Kumar Samal, Dilawar Balu Kurane, Sajjan Kumar, and Shashikant Sharma cases [Paras 7-13].

Kidnapping – Ingredients Not Made Out – Section 363 IPC – No Evidence of Enticement or Inducement – Both minor victims in their Section 164 CrPC statements clearly stated that they voluntarily took lift in petitioner’s vehicle without any allurement or coercion – Held that mere offering of a lift without inducement does not amount to kidnapping – Charge under Section 363 IPC unsustainable [Paras 14, 15, 22].

Rape – Lack of Evidence – Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act – No Statement from Victims Alleging Sexual Assault – Medical report indicated prior sexual intercourse but did not connect the petitioner to the act – Absence of scientific or corroborative evidence such as forensic findings – Held: Charges for rape/penetrative sexual assault cannot be sustained merely on medical opinion without any supporting testimony or material connecting the accused – Charges quashed [Paras 19, 23].

Test for Framing Charge – Mere Existence of FIR and Medical Opinion Not Enough – The trial court failed to apply its mind to evaluate whether the material disclosed the commission of offences – Held that broad probabilities and totality of material should be considered but without conducting a mini trial – Trial court's mechanical framing of charges without requisite satisfaction is unsustainable [Paras 20, 24].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Charges framed under Section 363, 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act set aside – Petitioner discharged – Challan dismissed – Observed that prosecution material did not raise even grave suspicion against the petitioner [Paras 25-26].

Civil Law - CLAT PG 2024–25 – Disputed Answer Key – Judicial Review Partially Allowed – Petitioners contested the final answer key for four questions citing misapplication of legal principles – Court held that for Questions 21 and 98, the Consortium's answers were incorrect, and directed it to revise scoring accordingly – Held: In case of legal interpretative error or factual discrepancy, courts may intervene even in academic matters, especially when based on flawed reasoning [Paras 6-8, 17].

Competitive Exam – Framing of Questions from Non-Primary Sources – Judicial Caution – The Court found that the passages for Questions 21 and 57 were not extracted from judgments but were commentary-based, which led to misinterpretation by candidates – Held: Candidates are to be assessed only on the material in the passage, especially where no prior reading list is provided – Evaluation must align with content presented [Paras 7-8, 12].

CLAT PG – Fee for Objections – ₹1,000 Per Question Held Excessive – Court noted the disparity between CLAT’s fee and those charged by other national-level examination bodies – However, considering that most candidates already paid the amount and results were due, the levy was not quashed for this year – Held: Consortium should reconsider and possibly reduce the fee for future exams and consult Justice G. Raghuram Committee for guidance [Paras 25-26].

CLAT PG – Public Law Challenge to Consortium – Maintainability Upheld – The Consortium, though a private body, performs a public function in conducting national law entrance exams and is therefore subject to judicial review under Article 226 – Held: Petitions maintainable and fit for limited interference [Implied across judgment].

Decision – Writ Petitions Partly Allowed – Consortium directed to revise marks for Questions 21 and 98, and maintain deletion of Question 56 – Answer to Question 57 upheld as correct – Fee structure for objections not quashed but future reforms suggested [Paras 8, 12, 17, 26-27].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Unnatural Sex by Husband – Consent and Marital Status – Proceedings Upheld – Applicant sought quashing of charges under Section 377 IPC asserting exemption based on marital relationship – Held: Unnatural intercourse by husband without wife's consent, even if she is above 18, is punishable under Section 377 IPC – Marriage does not negate a woman's bodily autonomy or her right to sexual dignity and orientation – Court declined to follow contrary Madhya Pradesh High Court view and relied on Navtej Singh Johar and Puttaswamy to affirm that non-consensual carnal intercourse violates Article 21 and is triable under Section 377 IPC [Paras 18–25].

Dowry Harassment – 498A IPC – Delay in FIR – Not Fatal – Allegations and Continuous Cruelty Sufficient – Allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty were corroborated through statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC – Delay in lodging FIR not fatal as harassment was continuous – Independent witnesses’ silence or lack of support not decisive – FIR discloses triable case and no ground for quashing made out [Paras 3–4, 27–30].

Medical Evidence and Consent – Lack of Medical Examination Not Ground for Quashing – Material Sufficient for Trial – Court held refusal of medical examination by complainant does not nullify prosecution – Presence of prima facie material including complainant’s statements justified continuation of trial – Right to privacy and sexual dignity held paramount even within marriage [Paras 19, 29].

Decision – Quashing Denied – Charges Maintainable – Applicant at Liberty to Seek Bail – Allahabad High Court rejected the application to quash proceedings – Held that charges under Section 377 IPC and dowry laws are prima facie made out – Directed that applicant may apply for bail before trial court [Paras 26, 31–32].

Service Law – Withdrawal of Appointment – Arbitrary Action – Appointment Upheld – Petitioners were selected for the post of Producer at EMMRC, BBAU and issued formal offer letters dated 08.06.2018, which they duly accepted – University later withdrew the appointments via order dated 27.11.2019 citing procedural irregularities in the Selection Committee – Held: The withdrawal was arbitrary, non-speaking, violative of natural justice, and contrary to Articles 14 and established legal principles – Impugned order and BOM resolutions quashed – University directed to give effect to offer and appoint petitioners with consequential benefits [Paras 34–45].

Natural Justice – Requirement to Record Reasons – Non-speaking Order Invalid – Opportunity of Hearing Not Provided – Withdrawal order was passed without any reasoning despite court’s earlier direction to provide a reasoned decision – No opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners – Court emphasized settled principle that administrative decisions affecting civil consequences must comply with natural justice – Withdrawal order struck down as arbitrary and unfair [Paras 35–37].

Legitimate Expectation and Promissory Estoppel – Offer of Appointment Accepted – Unilateral Withdrawal Impermissible – Offer of appointment created a legitimate expectation – Petitioners altered their position based on the promise made by the university – Citing Motilal Padampat and Food Corporation of India, court held university estopped from resiling from its representation – Principles of fairness and consistency apply even in public contractual dealings [Paras 38–40].

Doctrine of Indoor Management – Petitioners Not Liable for Internal Procedural Irregularities – Petitioners, as bona fide outsiders, could not be penalized for any alleged internal defect in the Selection Committee’s composition – Once BOM approved the selection and offers were issued, it was inequitable for university to withdraw them on internal grounds – Doctrine of indoor managemnt applied analogously to protect petitioners [Paras 24–26, 40].

Distinction from Precedents – Shankarsan Dash and Tej Prakash Pathak Not Applicable – Court distinguished facts from those in Shankarsan Dash and Tej Prakash Pathak, observing that while candidates may not have indefeasible right to appointment, withdrawal after formal offer and acceptance without fair procedure is impermissible – State must act bona fide and not arbitrarily [Paras 41–42].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Impugned order dated 27.11.2019 and BOM resolutions dated 31.10.2018 and 20.08.2019 quashed – Respondents directed to give effect to appointment offers dated 08.06.2018 and appoint petitioners to the post of Producer with all consequential benefits [Paras 43–45].

Service Law - Medical Reimbursement – Heart Transplant at Non-Empanelled Hospital – Petition Allowed – Petitioner underwent urgent heart transplant at a private hospital due to non-availability of CGHS-empanelled hospitals in Mumbai with necessary license and expertise – Held: Denial of full reimbursement on grounds of CGHS rate limitations and 'planned' nature of surgery was arbitrary – High Power Committee failed to appreciate exigency and violated Article 21 rights [Paras 2–4, 32–34, 42–43].

Relaxation of CGHS Rules – Applicability of Office Memorandum dated 15 July 2014 – Judicial Endorsement – Court held that the Office Memorandum clearly permits relaxation for full reimbursement in special/emergency circumstances – Heart transplant held to be such a circumstance – Held: HPC ought to have considered the petitioner’s case sympathetically in light of constitutional obligations [Paras 36–38].

Right to Life and Medical Urgency – Constitutional Interpretation – Court recognized right to medical treatment as part of Article 21 – Petitioner could not be denied treatment due to financial incapacity or mechanical policy application – Held: Medical reimbursement must uphold dignity and life preservation [Paras 39–41, 43–46].

Administrative Function – High Power Committee – Duty of Sensitivity – HPC failed to comply with prior court directions for hearing and ignored facts warranting discretionary relief – Held: Mechanistic rejection without personal hearing contrary to equity and fair play [Paras 23–24, 44–46].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – High Court directed respondents to grant full reimbursement of Rs. 22,08,440 with 9% interest – Impugned decisions dated 30 November 2021 and 13 April 2022 quashed – Reimbursement to be completed within four weeks [Paras 47–48].

Criminal Law - Rape and Unnatural Offence – Acquittal Challenged – Sections 376(2)(f) and 377 IPC – Acquittal Upheld – The appellant, mother of the victim, challenged the trial court's acquittal of the accused, her husband, on allegations of sexual assault of their minor daughter – Prosecution primarily relied on the testimony of the mother (PW.4) and the victim (PW.23) along with medical evidence – Held: The evidence revealed significant inconsistencies, including admissions by the victim of being tutored by the mother – DNA findings contradicted the prosecution's case, with the victim’s DNA absent on crucial materials allegedly worn during the incident – Medical reports showed infections consistent with non-sexual causes like urinary tract infection and pinworms rather than sexual abuse – The failure to examine key independent witness (the maid Geeta) was fatal to the prosecution – The trial court’s reasoning that the case arose out of marital discord and custody disputes was justified – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10-20].

Medical Evidence – DNA Report – Contradictions – DNA of the accused was found on seized clothes and bedspreads but the victim's DNA was conspicuously absent from those items – Vaginal and anal swabs tested negative for the accused’s DNA – Held: DNA evidence undermines the prosecution case and supports the defence claim that the materials may have been manipulated or do not relate to the alleged incident – No reliable medical corroboration to sustain the charge of rape [Paras 14-15].

Victim's Testimony – Reliability – Victim admitted in court that she was tutored by her mother and given incentives like chocolate and picnics for her statements – Held: Testimony tainted by influence, lacked spontaneity, and inconsistent with her memory about key events – Courts held that though conviction can rest solely on victim’s testimony, in this case, the evidence was neither credible nor free from doubt – Benefit of doubt rightly extended to the accused [Para 17].

Non-Examination of Key Witness – Maid Present During Incident Not Examined – Critical Witness Suppressed – The housemaid Geeta, who was present during the alleged incident of 13.06.2012, was not examined by the prosecution despite her statement being recorded by the investigating officer – Held: Non-examination raises adverse inference against the prosecution – Supports the finding of the trial court that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Para 16].

Legal Principle – Presumption of Innocence Strengthened – Citing the principle that between “may be true” and “must be true,” the Court reiterated that unless the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt with clear, cogent, and unimpeachable evidence, benefit of doubt must go to the accused – Acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence – No ground to interfere with trial court’s findings – Appeal dismissed [Para 20-21].

Civil Law - Wakaf by User – Applicability of Section 3(d) of the J&K Wakafs Act, 1978 – Ziyarat is Wakaf by nature – Held that religious properties such as Ziyarat, Dargah, or Graveyard are Wakafs by user irrespective of formal notification – No formal declaration required under the Act for such properties to be treated as Wakaf – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13-15].

Wakaf Notification – Scope of Section 6 of the Wakafs Act, 1978 – Publication in Gazette is directory and does not constitute the creation of Wakaf – Section 6 only requires the government to publish a list of Wakafs following a survey under Section 4 – It does not amount to declaration or conferment of Wakaf status – Writ Court rightly rejected the plea that absence of notification negates Wakaf status [Paras 14-15].

Ownership Dispute – Khasra Number Discrepancy – Appellants claim that Ziyarat falls within their proprietary land (Khasra No. 323) which is not notified as Wakaf – Held: If Ziyarat is located within Khasra No. 323, appellants are free to seek demarcation from revenue authorities or file civil suit – However, challenge to Wakaf Board’s order is not maintainable since Khasra No. 323 is not part of the Wakaf notification (SRO 510 of 1985) – Appellants have no locus to question management of Wakaf properties located in Khasra No. 322 min [Paras 9, 16-18].

Survey of Wakafs – Section 4 – Survey conducted under Section 4 presupposes the existence of Wakafs by dedication or user – Appellants never objected during the original 1985 notification process (SRO 510) – Cannot raise challenge at this stage without challenging the foundational notification itself – The Court upheld that the Wakaf Board was within its legal authority to take over the management [Paras 12, 15, 17].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No legal infirmity in the writ court’s judgment dismissing WP(C) No. 1044/2023 – The appellant may pursue remedies before revenue authorities or civil court for their proprietary claim but cannot challenge the Wakaf Board’s management over the notified Wakaf properties [Paras 17-18].

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation Assessment – Contributory Negligence and Quantum – Appeal Partly Allowed – Insurance Company contested MACT’s award of ₹4,53,047 on two grounds: improper apportionment of liability between two vehicles and excess compensation – Court held no contributory negligence was proved by insurer regarding second motorbike involved – On quantum, MACT correctly applied heads of compensation, but disability was temporary (25%) and proved only for two years – Award revised accordingly – Held: Compensation reduced to ₹2,99,047 with 9% interest from date of petition; no interference with pain and suffering, special diet, and cost components [Paras 4–27].

NDPS Bail – Section 37 NDPS Act – Alleged Financing of Contraband Purchase – Bail Granted – Petitioner, a woman and sixth accused, allegedly transferred money to her son and driver who were found in possession of MDMA – Prosecution invoked conspiracy under Sections 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act – Held: Mere monetary transfers to family members insufficient to constitute criminal conspiracy in absence of physical manifestation or overt acts – Petitioner’s relationship with accused and financial transactions explained as familial support – No direct evidence of involvement in drug offence [Paras 3–8].

Conspiracy – Requirement of Overt Acts – Supreme Court Precedents – Court reiterated that conspiracy requires more than speculative inference – Relied on R. Venkatkrishnan v. CBI (2009) 11 SCC 737 and State of Orissa v. Mahimananda Mishra (2018) 10 SCC 516 – Held: No prima facie case of agreement between petitioner and co-accused – Petitioner’s conduct does not meet threshold for rigour under Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 7–8].

Comparative Parity – Co-accused Granted Bail – Petitioner arrested on same day as 5th accused who was already granted bail – No criminal antecedents – Continued detention not warranted – Bail granted on parity grounds and in light of gender and health considerations [Paras 5, 9].

Bail Principles – NDPS Act – Applicability of Section 37 – Reference to Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024 INSC 1045) and Mohit Aggarwal (2022) 18 SCC 374 – Despite strict interpretation, Court found petitioner not likely to commit offence or tamper evidence – No prior record – Bail granted with strict conditions [Paras 10–12].

Decision – Bail Granted – Court held that petitioner’s custody not justified in absence of credible evidence of conspiracy – Found reasonable grounds to believe she is not guilty and not likely to reoffend – Ordered release on bail with standard safeguards and liberty to modify by jurisdictional court [Paras 12].